#24-CM-0030 State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 05 Nov 2024, 20:29

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 5th day of November, 2024

The Defendant, Mike Luigi, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

Reasoning: Undue Delay; violation of the defendant's 6th Amendment
- Detailed Explanation:
  
  Beginning sometime around June 2023, the Defendant DBA "Total Bankers" became the source of an investigation by the Office of the Attorney General. This investigation resulted in a criminal complaint being filed and this Court filed an indictment against the Defendant a year later, in June 2024. The case was put on a long-term pause in July 2024 ((OOC issues that needed resolved)), which the Defendant did not object to.
  
  On 23/Sep/2024, Ms. Hope Kant recused herself as the prosecutor, and noted she had made "the necessary arrangements to bring the Attorney General up to speed". The Attorney General notified this Court of their entry of appearance the following day, 24/Sep/2024. Plea negotiations began soonthereafter between Defendant and Counsel and the Attorney General, which failed on 6/Oct/2024. The Defendant entered their "not guilty" pleas with this court, which begins the proverbial clock on speedy trial. Defendant's counsel made notice to the Court of invocation of the Defendant's right to speedy trial on the same date.
  
  The first actionable delay and infringement of the Defendant's right to speedy trial occurred with the Court not ordering the prosecution to provide discovery until 17/Oct/2024, 11 days after it was demanded.
  
  Once ordered, the prosecution had until 24/Oct/2024 to provide discovery, following standard protocol. On day 6 of the 7 (23/Oct/2024), the State requested an unprecedented 10-day continuance, which would have extended the deadline to 3/Nov/2024. The Defense objected on grounds of the continuance being unprecedented, based in part on the fact standard practice is that continuances can be granted for up to 7 days, and based on the fact the prosecution had been investigating the Defendant since June 2023 -- therefore had 17 months to collect their evidence to comply with the court order. The Court denied the motion, and the deadline remained 24/Oct/2024.
  
  The second actionable delay and infringement of the Defendant's right to speedy trial occurred with the State not complying with this order, and continues to the present.
  
  On 24/Oct/2024 (the deadline for discovery), the Prosecution files an appeal in the Court of Appeals and files a Motion to Stay these proceedings pending outcome of the appeal. The Defense objected to the motion to stay pending appeal, arguing a number of issues. But most importantly, the outcome of the appeal will be either a decision from the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of this Court or overturning the decision of this court. Regardless of what decision is adopted, the point of contention is whether the State should have been allowed to have 10 additional days for their continuance or not, but ultimately the 10 day requested period has come and gone. On 1/Nov/2024, Defense posted a motion to, again, compel discovery citing this very issue -- the Prosecution has subverted the Court and the Defendant's Constitutional rights as evidenced by the fact the Prosecution has not only overstayed the Order of this Court, but has overstayed their own initial request under the guise of an appeal. The Defense offered a "cure" to the appeal by agreeing to abandon the issue of the continuance (and any appellate issues therein), if the State presented their discovery by 2359 hours on 3/Nov/2024 (per the State's own request). However, neither State nor Court responded to the Defense motion, forming the third actionable delay and infringement of the Defendant's right to speedy trial.
  
  The Defense notified the Court of Appeals (via e-mail) of it's objection to the appeal on grounds of requested appeal not meeting the criterion set by the Court of when an appeal could be filed in the first place -- the decision was not a granted motion, nor involving an improper verdict catalyzed by misinterpretation of the law by a judge or new evidence of innocence coming to light. If the Prosecution claims the appeal was a necessary move to file an appeal in their "search for justice", then the Prosecution should have no issue complying with their very own request to provide discovery by 3/Nov/2024. It is evident the State never intended on complying with the Order of the Court, and filed their motion for continuance with full knowledge it would be objectionable, and when a decision was rendered against their interests, they would file an appeal to delay this matter.
  
  The Defense has utilized all possible mechanisms of addressing this issue via legal methods (e.g. petitioning this Court, filing complaints, discussions among the parties, and offering to abandon the objection to continuance in favor of progressing the case), to no avail. At this point, the Defense believes the ONLY reasonable way to guarantee the Defendant's Constitutional right (not a privilege, or an option, but a right) and cure for these transgressions against the Defendant's Constitutional rights is for via punitive measures against the Office of the Attorney General in the form of total case dismissal.

Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 05 Nov 2024, 21:09

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

To all pertaining parties,

The Prosecution would like to state for the record that it is awaiting action on the filed appeal on this case before responding to any of opposing counsel's multiple motions. We are also waiting for a response from the Chief Justice on the filed subpoena before proceeding.

Regards,

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 09 Nov 2024, 05:19

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A decision was reached in the above case on the 9th day of November, 2024.

Pursuant to the Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, the Court hereby recognizes the request and will await further instructions from the Court of Appeals.

In regards to the request for dismissal, specifically addressing the possibility of issuing punitive measures against the Office of the Attorney General, the Superior Court must clarify that the request for punitive dismissal as a means of disciplining the Office of the Attorney General fundamentally misunderstands both the nature and authority of the Superior Court.
These proceedings exist to decide on criminal matters and protect constitutional rights through established remedial measures, not to impose institutional punishment on governmental entities. The rulings of the Court must build themselves upon legally recognized measures and remedies, rather than through punitive actions that exceed the competence of this Court.

While the Defense correctly asserts their client's constitutional rights must be protected, this protection must come through established legal frameworks such as deadlines, Bar Ethics Review Board investigations, or disciplinary complaints against individuals, but not through the punitive dismissal of an entire case as a mean of challenging or disciplining the Office of the Attorney General. That would imply utilizing institutional punishment over the public's interest in justice, and thus, exceeds the authority of this Court.

So ordered,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 13 Nov 2024, 13:50

San Andreas Judicial Branch
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Parties,

Following recent objections made in regards to a Subpoena issued by the Superior Court, it has been determined that a clarification in regards to the scope had to be adopted. In that regard, find attached to this notice the final authorized Subpoena directed at Total Bankers.

Best regards,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Attachment

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 18 Nov 2024, 06:09

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Parties,

Pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction issued by the San Andreas Court of Appeals on the matter of #24-AP-0008, the Prosecution is hereby ordered to:

(...) Any and all evidence subject to disclosure by the prosecution per an Order for Discovery shall be presented to the trial docket through a Motion for Discovery within 72 hours of this notice.
Best regards,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 19 Nov 2024, 23:37

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 19th of November, 2024.

The State of San Andreas by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

Exhibit #1: Total Bankers Contract - Cody Monk

Exhibit #2: Total Bankers Contract - Lincoln Burrows

Exhibit #3: Total Bankers Contract - Rue Lebaigue
Exhibit #4: BLB Total Bankers Audit Search Warrant and Results
Search Warrant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

To:
The Office of the Attorney General and the Business Licensing Bureau;

You are hereby directed to conduct a search of Business Records - Loan Contracts for the following designated records:

Loan Contracts issued by Total Bankers

[X] Any evidence of crimes in violation of the San Andreas Penal Law Article GM to SF included but not limited to:

BLB03 - Breach of Major Licensing Conditions

GM11 - Predatory Lending

GF07 - Felony Fraud

GF18 - Racketeering

DF05 - Manufacturing a Controlled Substance

DF01 - Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent of Sales

DM05 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance

DM02 - Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance

WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm

WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm

You are directed to execute this warrant between the hours of:

[ ] 06:00 - 21:00

[ ] 08:00 - 22:00 (Hours of Operation for the Bank of San Andreas)

[X] Any time day or night.

You are being directed to send a copy of this warrant to the property owner once executed, and return a copy with all property seized pursuant there to your respective department without unnecessary delay. The court requires a copy be submitted to the warrant application for internal archive.

This warrant is issued on 14/MAR/2024 and is effective for 7 days. Should an extension be required please submit a notice no less then 12 hours prior to this warrants closing.

Best regards,

Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
Clerk - Administrative Office
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]
Exhibit #5: Total Bankers Contract - Andy Tyrie
Exhibit #6: Andy Tyrie Witness Statement
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Case Number: [Case Number]
  Incident Date: [01/JAN/2000]
Witness Information
- Name: Andy Tyrie
  Date of Birth: REDACTED
  Phone Number: REDACTED
  Occupation: Law Review Committee, House Clerk
Witness Statement
- I contacted Mike Luigi along with a few other loan companies about getting a loan for $3,800,000, My first choice was Willowick as I knew him and he had offered doing a partnerships with another company as he had most of his money in active loans. Mike replied saying yes I can meet up and get you the full amount but it’s gonna be 50% interest as I would be paying it off in $100,000 instalments and he would need more money due to the fact of how long he would be out the money, I agreed as I loved the building the money was going to and didn’t wanna miss out on the opportunity due to where it is the size etc. We headed up to his office same day where he appeared to write the contract terms in front of me, I signed and he handed me the money we then drove to my apartment which he took as collateral until I had paid off the first $500,000, I still had access to the apartment just now ownership bearing in mind he had to get Rija Luigi to hold the apartment for him so for that duration the apartment on paper belonged to Rija Luigi that address was 99 Weazel Plaza. We then went to the building witch is 18 Eastbourne Way I bought the property and was told to hand the deed to Elise Cavallera as she would be holding it on behalf of him and he would be taking it as collateral in the event of failing to pay, I have since asked him for a copy of our contract of which I have had no response despite texting multiple times and I’m at a loss as to what I am meant to do in this whole situation. I got hit with $1,900,000 of interest alone for this and after the fact some of the other companies got back and stated it wouldn’t been somewhere around $600,000-$800,00 in interest from them
Witness Affirmation
- I, Andy Tyrie, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
  
  Signed,
  
  Andy Tyrie
  
  Date: 27/JUN/2023
Exhibit #7: GOV CCTV Footage of Rija Luigi

((RP Proof))

CCTV Footage
Exhibit #8: Avon Miller Warrant Reports
Mike Luigi wrote: ↑19 Apr 2023, 15:04

Los Santos Police Department
WARRANT REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

SUSPECT DETAILS

Full Name: Avon Miller
Phone Number: 3982150
Officers Involved:

Police Sergeant II Mike Luigi

Charges:

WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons

WM03 - Possession of Weapon Modifications

DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance

INCIDENT NARRATIVE

Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.

Avon Miller's property 53 Carson Ave was seized by Total Bankers, evidence was found inside a locked safe within the property. Avon Miller was solely responsible for everything inside of the property. Evidence to this fact can be provided to courts if necessary.

Method of Identification

License

EVIDENCE DETAILS

Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.

Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.

Illegal Evidence:
Exhibit A: Pistol .50 - 1646797550029
Exhibit B: Pistol .50 ammo x50
Exhibit C: Silencer
Exhibit D: Marijuana plant x31

Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)
Exhibit #9: Ocean Dessrnt Warrant Reports
Mike Luigi wrote: ↑05 Apr 2023, 20:51

Los Santos Police Department
WARRANT REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

SUSPECT DETAILS

Full Name: Ocean Dessrnt
Phone Number: 5692689
Officers Involved:

Police Sergeant I Mike Luigi

Police Officer I Luke Cortez

Charges:

WF05 - Firearms Trafficking

WM03 - Possession of Weapon Modifications

DM05 - Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

GC06 - Possession of Cannabis

DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance

INCIDENT NARRATIVE

Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.

After Ocean Dessrnt failed to make payments on his loan, the property 16 Occupation Ave that was being used as collateral was seized by Total Bankers. Upon seizure a search of the property was conducted before re-sale with the illegal exhibits being found by myself, while off-duty and Officer Cortez who was called to the scene. Ocean Dessrnt signed a contract with Total Bankers stating he was responsible for everything within the property.

Method of Identification

License

EVIDENCE DETAILS

Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.

Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.

Illegal Evidence:
Exhibit A: Pistol .50 - Scratched
Exhibit B: Pistol .50 - Scratched
Exhibit C: Pistol .50 - Scratched
Exhibit D: Pistol .50 - Scratched
Exhibit E: Pistol .50 - 1580353077501
Exhibit F: Pistol .50 - 1591524905525
Exhibit G: Pistol .50 - 1588234680261
Exhibit H: Pistol .50 - 1585345198820
Exhibit I: Pistol .50 - 1587025151011
Exhibit J: Micro SMG - 1601042045556
Exhibit K: Assault Riffle - Scratched
Exhibit L: Pump Shotgun - Scratched
Exhibit M: SMG - Scratched
Exhibit N: Silencer
Exhibit O: Pistol .50 ammo x105
Exhibit P: Pump Shotgun ammo x20
Exhibit Q: Micro SMG ammo x100
Exhibit R: Assault Rifle ammo x96
Exhibit S: SMG ammo x104
Exhibit T: Drug Table x2
Exhibit U: Marijuana
Exhibit V: Methadone x8

Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)
Exhibit #10: Mike Luigi Public Notary Initial Submission
Mike Luigi wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 17:57

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Contract Pre-Approval Submission Form
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Submission Information

Submitting Party: Total Bankers
Type of Contract: Loan Agreement
Approved Representatives of Submitting Party:

Mike Luigi - [email protected]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Loan Agreement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Party 1 - "Total Bankers"

Name: Mike Luigi
Date of Birth: 07/JAN/1997
Mailing Address: 4 Calais Ave
Contact Information: 381-5045 or [email protected]

Party 2 - "Loanee"

Name: [Firstname Lastname]
Date of Birth: [01/JAN/2000]
Mailing Address: [## Streetname]
Contact Information: [###-####]

Collateral - "[Property/Vehicle]"

Street Address: [## Streetname]
Type of Real Estate: [Residential/Commercial]
[or/and]
License Plate: [License Plate]
Make/Model: [Make/Model]

Terms of Agreement - "Agreement"

I. LOAN TERMS
Total Bankers agree to provide a loan of [Amount] to the Loanee at an interest rate of [Percentage].

II. PAYMENT TERMS
The Loanee agrees to pay Total Bankers a minimum of [Amount] by 13:00 every [Weekday] until the loan balance has been cleared.

Missing a payment will result in notice being issued to the Loanee by Total Bankers of their non-payment, and it is the duty of the Loanee to pay Total Bankers the amount due before the time of the second payment. A second consecutive non-payment will result in the Loanee being declared in Default, as outlined in Section III.

III. DEFAULT
If the Loanee has two missed payments during the contract period, they will be considered in Default. Upon Total Bankers' invocation of this Default status at a time deemed suitable by them, the right to seize the Collateral as delineated in Section IV becomes enforceable. It is essential to note that even after the collateral has been seized and forfeited, the Loanee's duty to clear the remaining loan balance remains, as the forfeiture of the collateral does not result in a reduction of the outstanding loan balance.

IV. COLLATERAL
The Loanee will be putting up the following as Collateral, being made fully aware of the consequences of being found in Default:
Street Address: [## Streetname]
Type of Real Estate: [Residential/Commercial]
[or/and]
License Plate: [License Plate]
Make/Model: [Make/Model]

V. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
If any part of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable, the rest of this Agreement will remain enforceable while section in question will become void.

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE
If a dispute arises out of or relates to this Agreement, and the dispute cannot be resolved by negotiations between the Parties, the Parties agree first to try in good faith to resolve the dispute via mediation before resorting to either arbitration or litigation.

VII. JURISDICTION
This contract was drafted following the Penal Code and guidelines of the State of San Andreas, whose courts shall have sole jurisdiction over any and all disputes that may arise, subject to the Dispute Resolution Clause of this contract.

VIII. TERMINATION
After the agreement is signed, this contract may only be terminated by the written consent of both Parties. This contract will also terminate upon the final payment by the Loanee to Total Bankers.
Exhibit #11: Public Notary Assessment Email
Hope Kant wrote: ↑07 Jul 2023, 16:16

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Personal Email
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Dear Mr. Luigi,

The Public Notary has taken time to review your contract.
Our questions are as follows...

How do you/will you determine loan percentage? As you have not put a max or a minimum, the Public Notary division cannot sign off on the contract. Predatory Lending by our penal code is defined as "to loan money under unfair or fraudulent pretenses, often with the the outcome of violence should the contract not be fulfilled." That being said, pre-approving a loan with no defined percentage rate will not be something the Public Notary division allows. As an officer of the law, I'm sure you can understand that a high rate of interest can be qualified as "unfair pretenses".

Section 3: Default states, "It is essential to note that even after the collateral has been seized and forfeited, the Loanee's duty to clear the remaining loan balance remains, as the forfeiture of the collateral does not result in a reduction of the outstanding loan balance." This type of language is predatory by nature and goes against the very definition of Collateral. Collateral is to be used as a way for lenders to recoup money from a defaulted loan/rental payment/damages done. To not include the Collateral as money against the loan, means it isn't Collateral at all.

You will also need a clause like the following, "SALES TAX - In the State of San Andreas, failure to pay sales tax is a misdemeanor crime. The Seller will have the sole responsibility, upon receiving payments from the Buyer, to document both the receipt of the payments as well as their payment of the sales tax at City Hall." ((Does the script system you use automatically take out money for taxes? AKA does it go into your salary or automatically get put into your bank account. Cause if so, then putting the clause on the contract is just a formality. I'm not really familiar with the script))

As it stands, your contract will not be notarized. The Public Notary feels, that in it's current state, it breaks our current laws and constitution. If the listed changes are made, the contract can be revisited and possibly approved. We look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,

Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Notary Public
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]
Exhibit #12: Mike Luigi Response to Contract Assessment
Mike Luigi wrote:07 Jul 2023, 17:12

Total Bankers
We deal in security
We sniff out profit

Senior Prosecuting Attorney Hope Kant,

Thank you for the quick reply. Firstly, am I able to have a copy of the contract I submitted so I can amend accordingly?

Loan Companies as authorized by the state have a maximum interest rate of 80% and loan size of $10,000,000. While we do not generally operate in these extremes these were the limitations put in place on loan companies. If there is a limit the Judicial Branch wishes to apply on top of this I would be happy to comply.

Section 3 can be amended as you have noted, this does make sense.

I do not see the need for a SALES TAX section as there is no sale taking place, simply a loan. Profit on the loan is directly transferred upon receival from the loan company to my personal salary meaning I am liable to pay up to 35% in taxes on the profits.

Best regards,

Mike Luigi
Chief Executive Officer
Total Bankers
Exhibit #13: Cody Monk and John G Interview
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Prosecution Department
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

((RP Proof))
- **Recording begins**
  HK: Alright, so my name is Hope Kant. I am a senior prosecuting attorney with the Judicial Branch.
  CM: Nice to meet you.
  HK: Um, do you mind stating your names just for my record?
  CM: Cody Monk
  JG: John G
  HK: Okay, so, um, it is my understanding that you have gotten a loan with Total Bankers or have had a loan previously with total bankers, correct?
  CM: Yeah I still never received the property or anything, and it’s still being taken out of my paycheck every day. It’s annoying.
  HK: Okay, um, so, do you have any bodycam footage of the incident or anything like that? Um, let me look through my files to see if maybe there’s something on you previously too.
  CM: Wait, but what happened to this? Why was I called? If I may ask is- am I in trouble or-?
  HK: No, no, you were brought here to talk about the loan, like, because I believe them to be, like, wrongfully done so I’m trying to- to resolve this for you. It’s, like, no one’s done anything about this, and these loans are crazy.
  CM: Yeah, and Medi told me- Modi- whatever. He told me that these loans are not even validated or whatever. He does them out of his pocket or- and they’re very high percentage.
  HK: They are.
  CM: And he does it to newer people. He- and he does it to new people. At that time I was very new, and he- he takes that advantage. He says “oh it’s a good one” and bro-
  JG: Do you want to see the agreement copy? I should have it in my pocket. Hello?
  HK: Okay sorry. Um, yeah, I would. Like honestly everything that you have, um, would be great, um, cause I already have multiple people that have come to me with problems. So, I’m hoping to, like with enough people, that I can take him down and stop this for good.
  CM: Yeah, apparently I’m not the only case. I’m- I’m going to send- I’m going to ask Weazel News to make a newspaper about my case, cause my case was worse. He told me he’s going to arrest me off-duty, and he tracked me down with the phone.
  **Ruffling can be heard as a contract is given from John G to Hope Kant**
  JG: You can read it carefully.
  HK: Yeah, that’s perfect. So, that is literally what I needed for clear evidence of predatory lending, so thank you. Um, because- did he take your property?
  CM: Um, I don't have nothing access to it. I lost it after 1 week, and I still don’t have a home. So yeah, great.
  HK: Okay, okay, so he did take your property, and that hasn’t been deducted from your loan balance, correct?
  CM: Um, I still have the loan, and, um, I don’t have nothing to house. So, yeah.
  HK: Okay, um, alright, um, do you have any other- like do you have the bodycam footage or anything else?
  CM: Do you want the one where he tells me off duty he’s going to arrest me?
  JG: Yes we do.
  HK: Yeah, if possible. Yeah- I- literally everything you guys have. Um, just send it to me. Um I can give you- I’ll give you my text message or my text number so you can text me the links to all the footage or whatever that you have. I don’t know how you’ve saved it, so-
  CM: There I sent you the footage.
  **Pause**
  HK: Alright, perfect.
  **Pause**
  HK: Okay, so, I see that you sent me the contract being done. Do you have footage of him threatening you with arresting you for not paying it?
  CM: Yeah, look at the part two. If you want, I’ll tell you exactly the minute should look at one sec
  **Pause**
  HK: Okay yeah I will have to look through all of this. Um I really appreciate you talking with me and everything cause that is very helpful for me. I hope that through the criminal investigation, things like these will stop and that we can get your property returned to you. Um, because that would be the goal. Or at least the sum that you paid for it returned for you or at least the sum you’ve paid so far. Like we’ll figure out something. I’m hoping to get some restitution for the people he’s wronged. So, um-
  CM: Wait what happened though, like what has he been doing. Were we the only one?
  HK: No, there’s been multiple people, but I can’t really go into the investigation too much. Um, but I am glad that you guys came and talked to me. Um, cause this will help-
  CM: We reported this two months ago and they said oh perfect we’re going to open a case about this. Then another comes and says “oh Mike? There's no way Mike would do something like that. He's a good friend of mine. Just speak with him. He’s good.” Like we got so tired that everyone's friends with him in this judicial whatever, and nobody wanted to do anything. Apparently he’s pretty known and has power. So, yeah, we just gave up. We left the city. I left the city that time cause I was annoyed, but because of that-
  HK: Yeah- well- I- I- well I might know him and work with him that doesn’t mean that he is above the law, so-
  CM: Wait, I have a question. Okay I’ll tell you- I know you said you have to watch the whole part, but tell me just this one part tell me if this is *words*. I’ll tell you uh- in gmail which part. It’s like one minute.
  **Pause**
  HK: Yeah- um- I mean that’s arguably abuse of power, but I mean we’ll- I’ll go through the footage and I’ll see what I can do um cause this isn’t allowed um at all in any way shape or form. So we’ll figure it out. We’ll at least get some money hopefully sent back to you guys. And like work this out for you guys cause I’m really sorry this happened.
  CM: Yeah I mean, I mean we’re pretty- like there’s obviously damage has been done. If this goes through, I’d appreciate if I could get the property- or- cause that’s my original goal.
  HK: Yeah, I mean we’ll see what we can do. I can’t promise anything, but I am going to try and do my best to get this resolved.
  **Pause**
  HK: Alright, um, I do have everything I need. Obviously it’ll take me a while to go through all the footage, but I do appreciate you guys sitting down and talking to me. Um, this isn’t going to be like before, where it doesn’t get handled. I already have proof of other things and I’m working on getting this all put forward. So um we will hopefully take him down. Um-
  CM: What do you mean by taking him down?
  HK: Um, get him arrested? Um, for the crimes he committed? Um, stop him from doing these things to other people. You know, all of the above.
  CM: Yeah, but there’s a Weazel paper made about him.
  JG: Good to hear this.
  HK: Yeah, that’s why all this started is because we read the Weazel news article and have been looking into it since then.
  CM: Weazel asked for my side as well with this. They wanna share my story and the footage I have.
  HK: I mean you should let them to be fair. Um-
  CM: Wait isn’t he a high ranking offer or rich-
  HK: Yes he is.
  CM: That he can- so, technically, not much is going to happen to him is it. Cause usually those people, who are high ranking-
  HK: No, that’s not necessarily the case. Like I said before, the law is the law, and, if you break it, you should still have to pay for it.
  JG: It looks like cops are above law in this city. That’s what we feels like so far.
  CM: Wait with his contract, what’s wrong with the contract? Cause I don’t know how to read contracts very well, but with that contract he made. What’s bad about it, so I know in the future?
  HK: Um uh the- you shouldn’t agree to give over the property, like without it being considered collateral. Like the property wasn’t even written in as collateral. Like you just gave it to him essentially, um, and he paid for it, and now you have to pay money back for a property you don’t have.
  CM: Oh so he found a loophole in the system to do this.
  HK: No, it’s not that. It’s predatory lending. It’s just- you should never do that. That’s wrong.
  CM: Oh, it’s like in most cases, but he also put a very high percentage, and he knew I was new. I don’t know why he did that, but I don’t know about percentages, but he put me 35 or something. I heard that’s really bad or 40%
  HK: Um, I- on the contract it said 25.
  CM: Oh, yeah. 25, sorry. But-
  HK: Yeah, actually, 25 isn’t that bad. I’ve heard him do 50% before. So, 25 is really not that bad.
  CM: Yeah, I mean- yeah, he’s crazy if he did 50.
  HK: Yeah, I mean I’ll do my best like I said.
  **Recording ends**
- Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
  DISCLAIMER: This message, including attachments, is confidential and may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
Exhibit #14: John G Bodycam

((RP Proof))

Exhibit #15: Mike Luigi Bank Records - WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn

Exhibit #16: Cody Monk received messages

Exhibit #17: Mike Luigi phone records
Phone records

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 22 Nov 2024, 04:52

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the November 22nd, 2024.

The Defendant, Mike Luigi , by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

Exhibit #: Exhibit #4: BLB Total Bankers Audit Search Warrant and Results
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
All results of the search warrant
- Detailed Reasoning: The search warrant, dated 14/MAR/2024, states, "You are being directed to send a copy of this warrant to the property owner once executed". However, this portion of the order was never followed, and the Defendant never received a copy. Therefore, it is the belief of defense counsel, this evidence shall be excluded as "fruit of the poisonous tree".

Exhibit #: Exhibit #13: Cody Monk and John G Interview
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
Exhibit #13: Cody Monk and John G Interview (see annotations)
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Prosecution Department
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

((RP Proof))

**Recording begins**
HK: Alright, so my name is Hope Kant. I am a senior prosecuting attorney with the Judicial Branch.
CM: Nice to meet you.
HK: Um, do you mind stating your names just for my record?
CM: Cody Monk
JG: John G
HK: Okay, so, um, it is my understanding that you have gotten a loan with Total Bankers or have had a loan previously with total bankers, correct?
CM: Yeah I still never received the property or anything, and it’s still being taken out of my paycheck every day. It’s annoying.
HK: Okay, um, so, do you have any bodycam footage of the incident or anything like that? Um, let me look through my files to see if maybe there’s something on you previously too.
CM: Wait, but what happened to this? Why was I called? If I may ask is- am I in trouble or-?
HK: No, no, you were brought here to talk about the loan, like, because I believe them to be, like, wrongfully done so I’m trying to- to resolve this for you. It’s, like, no one’s done anything about this, and these loans are crazy.
CM: Yeah, and Medi told me- Modi- whatever. He told me that these loans are not even validated or whatever. He does them out of his pocket or- and they’re very high percentage.
HK: They are.
CM: And he does it to newer people. He- and he does it to new people. At that time I was very new, and he- he takes that advantage. He says “oh it’s a good one” and bro-
JG: Do you want to see the agreement copy? I should have it in my pocket. Hello?
HK: Okay sorry. Um, yeah, I would. Like honestly everything that you have, um, would be great, um, cause I already have multiple people that have come to me with problems. So, I’m hoping to, like with enough people, that I can take him down and stop this for good.
CM: Yeah, apparently I’m not the only case. I’m- I’m going to send- I’m going to ask Weazel News to make a newspaper about my case, cause my case was worse. He told me he’s going to arrest me off-duty, and he tracked me down with the phone.
**Ruffling can be heard as a contract is given from John G to Hope Kant**
JG: You can read it carefully.
HK: Yeah, that’s perfect. So, that is literally what I needed for clear evidence of predatory lending, so thank you. Um, because- did he take your property?
CM: Um, I don't have nothing access to it. I lost it after 1 week, and I still don’t have a home. So yeah, great.
HK: Okay, okay, so he did take your property, and that hasn’t been deducted from your loan balance, correct?
CM: Um, I still have the loan, and, um, I don’t have nothing to house. So, yeah.
HK: Okay, um, alright, um, do you have any other- like do you have the bodycam footage or anything else?
CM: Do you want the one where he tells me off duty he’s going to arrest me?
JG: Yes we do.
HK: Yeah, if possible. Yeah- I- literally everything you guys have. Um, just send it to me. Um I can give you- I’ll give you my text message or my text number so you can text me the links to all the footage or whatever that you have. I don’t know how you’ve saved it, so-
CM: There I sent you the footage.
**Pause**
HK: Alright, perfect.
**Pause**
HK: Okay, so, I see that you sent me the contract being done. Do you have footage of him threatening you with arresting you for not paying it?
CM: Yeah, look at the part two. If you want, I’ll tell you exactly the minute should look at one sec
**Pause**
HK: Okay yeah I will have to look through all of this. Um I really appreciate you talking with me and everything cause that is very helpful for me. I hope that through the criminal investigation, things like these will stop and that we can get your property returned to you. Um, because that would be the goal. Or at least the sum that you paid for it returned for you or at least the sum you’ve paid so far. Like we’ll figure out something. I’m hoping to get some restitution for the people he’s wronged. So, um-
CM: Wait what happened though, like what has he been doing. Were we the only one?
HK: No, there’s been multiple people, but I can’t really go into the investigation too much. Um, but I am glad that you guys came and talked to me. Um, cause this will help-
CM: We reported this two months ago and they said oh perfect we’re going to open a case about this. Then another comes and says “oh Mike? There's no way Mike would do something like that. He's a good friend of mine. Just speak with him. He’s good.” Like we got so tired that everyone's friends with him in this judicial whatever, and nobody wanted to do anything. Apparently he’s pretty known and has power. So, yeah, we just gave up. We left the city. I left the city that time cause I was annoyed, but because of that-
HK: Yeah- well- I- I- well I might know him and work with him that doesn’t mean that he is above the law, so-
CM: Wait, I have a question. Okay I’ll tell you- I know you said you have to watch the whole part, but tell me just this one part tell me if this is *words*. I’ll tell you uh- in gmail which part. It’s like one minute.
**Pause**
HK: Yeah- um- I mean that’s arguably abuse of power, but I mean we’ll- I’ll go through the footage and I’ll see what I can do um cause this isn’t allowed um at all in any way shape or form. So we’ll figure it out. We’ll at least get some money hopefully sent back to you guys. And like work this out for you guys cause I’m really sorry this happened.
CM: Yeah I mean, I mean we’re pretty- like there’s obviously damage has been done. If this goes through, I’d appreciate if I could get the property- or- cause that’s my original goal.
HK: Yeah, I mean we’ll see what we can do. I can’t promise anything, but I am going to try and do my best to get this resolved.
**Pause**
HK: Alright, um, I do have everything I need. Obviously it’ll take me a while to go through all the footage, but I do appreciate you guys sitting down and talking to me. Um, this isn’t going to be like before, where it doesn’t get handled. I already have proof of other things and I’m working on getting this all put forward. So um we will hopefully take him down. Um-
CM: What do you mean by taking him down?
HK: Um, get him arrested? Um, for the crimes he committed? Um, stop him from doing these things to other people. You know, all of the above.
CM: Yeah, but there’s a Weazel paper made about him.
JG: Good to hear this.
HK: Yeah, that’s why all this started is because we read the Weazel news article and have been looking into it since then.
CM: Weazel asked for my side as well with this. They wanna share my story and the footage I have.
HK: I mean you should let them to be fair. Um-
CM: Wait isn’t he a high ranking offer or rich-
HK: Yes he is.
CM: That he can- so, technically, not much is going to happen to him is it. Cause usually those people, who are high ranking-
HK: No, that’s not necessarily the case. Like I said before, the law is the law, and, if you break it, you should still have to pay for it.
JG: It looks like cops are above law in this city. That’s what we feels like so far.
CM: Wait with his contract, what’s wrong with the contract? Cause I don’t know how to read contracts very well, but with that contract he made. What’s bad about it, so I know in the future?
HK: Um uh the- you shouldn’t agree to give over the property, like without it being considered collateral. Like the property wasn’t even written in as collateral. Like you just gave it to him essentially, um, and he paid for it, and now you have to pay money back for a property you don’t have.
CM: Oh so he found a loophole in the system to do this.
HK: No, it’s not that. It’s predatory lending. It’s just- you should never do that. That’s wrong.
CM: Oh, it’s like in most cases, but he also put a very high percentage, and he knew I was new. I don’t know why he did that, but I don’t know about percentages, but he put me 35 or something. I heard that’s really bad or 40%
HK: Um, I- on the contract it said 25.
CM: Oh, yeah. 25, sorry. But-
HK: Yeah, actually, 25 isn’t that bad. I’ve heard him do 50% before. So, 25 is really not that bad.
CM: Yeah, I mean- yeah, he’s crazy if he did 50.
HK: Yeah, I mean I’ll do my best like I said.
**Recording ends**

Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]
DISCLAIMER: This message, including attachments, is confidential and may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
- Detailed Reasoning:
  CM: Yeah, and Medi told me- Modi- whatever. He told me that these loans are not even validated or whatever. He does them out of his pocket or- and they’re very high percentage.
  HK: They are.
  CM: And he does it to newer people. He- and he does it to new people. At that time I was very new, and he- he takes that advantage. He says “oh it’s a good one” and bro-
  This entire section is hearsay. The Prosecution is intending on using statements allegedly said by Sai Modi to Cody Monk to prove the truth of the matter (that the loans are not validated, done out of pocket, contained high percentages, and done to take advantage of people).
  
  So, that is literally what I needed for clear evidence of predatory lending
  This is more prejudicial than probative, and it's a conclusive statement which has not been proven in Court. The Defendant is innocent, until and unless proven guilty. This statement is an assertion of his guilt, although this has not occurred.
  
  HK: Yeah- um- I mean that’s arguably abuse of power, but I mean we’ll- I’ll go through the footage and I’ll see what I can do um cause this isn’t allowed um at all in any way shape or form. So we’ll figure it out. We’ll at least get some money hopefully sent back to you guys. And like work this out for you guys cause I’m really sorry this happened.
  This is more prejudicial than probative - again a conclusive statement asserting the Defendant's guilt, without such guilt being proven.
  
  HK: No, it’s not that. It’s predatory lending. It’s just- you should never do that. That’s wrong.
  Same objection - more prejudicial than probative; conclusive statement asserting the Defendant's guilt without a conviction.

Exhibit #: Exhibit #8: Avon Miller Warrant Reports & Exhibit #9: Ocean Dessrnt Warrant Reports
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
The entire exhibits
- Detailed Reasoning: This exhibit lacks any relevance to the charges for which the Defendant is facing. The exhibit is a warrant report filed by the Defendant, after illegal items were found in a property that was seized.

Exhibit #: Exhibit #10: Mike Luigi Public Notary Initial Submission, Exhibit #11: Public Notary Assessment Email, & Exhibit #12: Mike Luigi Response to Contract Assessment
Requested Evidence to Suppress:
The entire exhibits
- Detailed Reasoning: This exhibit lacks any relevance to the charges for which the Defendant is facing. These exhibits show correspondence between the Defendant and Public Notary, and showcases the Defendant's attempt at getting a contract authenticated, as it was a brief requirement with BLB. The contract depicted was never used, and it is merely work product.

Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 25 Nov 2024, 21:19

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Rebuttal

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 25th of November, 2024.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, presents a rebuttal to the recent motion;

Exhibit #4: BLB Total Bankers Audit Search Warrant and Results
Regarding fruit of the poisonous tree
The Defense states that the defendant was not provided a copy of the search warrant after its execution. The Defendant was never issued a copy as the warrant was never served against them, but the Business Licensing Bureau. These contracts were provided to the Prosecution by the BLB after a previous audit of various registered businesses in the state. The presiding judge even acknowledged this when denying another search warrant application filed by the Prosecution which referenced the warrant shown in Exhibit #1, stating "that warrant specifically authorized the review of state-owned documentation and findings, not private documents held by companies or individuals."

Exhibit #8: Avon Miller Warrant Reports and Exhibit #9: Ocean Dessrnt Warrant Reports
Regarding relevance
The defendant is indicted on multiple charges related to predatory and unfair lending practices. The
The Prosecution believes these reports to be relevant on the grounds that they provide context to the Prosecution's narrative of the defendant's unlawful loan practices of unlawfully seizing collateral from their loaners.

Exhibit #10: Mike Luigi Public Notary Initial Submission and Exhibit #11: Public Notary Assessment Email Exhibit #12: Mike Luigi Response to Contract Assessment
Regarding relevance
As with Exhibits #8 and #9, these exhibits are relevant due to their context in the Prosecution's narrative. The Prosecution argues that the correspondence in these exhibits when compared to the wording of the admitted loan contracts, furthers the notion that the defendant was aware of vague and unlawful wording in their contracts and attempted to get their contracts authorized through the Judicial Branch's Public Notary. Still, when the response was not in the defendant's favor, they did not proceed with the authorization and instead continued using their regular contracts, as will be presented by the Prosecution at trial.

Exhibit #13: Cody Monk and John G Interview
Regarding hearsay
The Prosecution will stipulate to hearsay for the first two (2) quotes by Cody Monk and Hope Kant. However, the second quote by Cody Monk should not be considered hearsay as it is based on personal experience and observation, as indicated by the statement "he does it to newer people [...] At that time I was very new"

Regarding prejudicial versus probative 1
The quoted statement is not an assertion of guilt by the Prosecution, but an affirmation toward the witness Cody Monk related to the evidence necessary to assist the Prosecution in proving the defendant's guilt, as the quote came after the witness handed over their contract to then-Attorney General Hope Kant, as indicated by the transcript.

Regarding prejudicial versus probative 2
The Prosecution will stipulate to this statement being more prejudicial than probative, apart from "Yeah- um- I mean that’s arguably abuse of power, but I mean we’ll- I’ll go through the footage and I’ll see what I can do". Once again, this is not an assertion of the defendant's guilt, but rather an indication of the Prosecution's argument for the defendant's guilt, as indicated by the use of "arguably".

Regarding prejudicial versus probative 3
The Prosecution will stipulate to this quote being more prejudicial than probative.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Antonio McFornell** » 25 Nov 2024, 21:50

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Dear Prosecutor,

Before deciding the recently presented motion to suppress, the Court would like to ask the following:

When the warrant was executed, which party (Agency, public employee perhaps?) specifically handed over the contracts for the Office of the Attorney General's review? Were these originals or copies?

Best regards,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 25 Nov 2024, 21:53

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Your Honor,

The contracts were handed over to the Prosecution by the Business Licensing Bureau, specifically Marc Ericsson. As mentioned, these contracts were copies gained through an audit taking place in or around December 2023, with specific notation that the redactions had been done by the defendant prior to handing them over to the BLB.

Regards,

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 25 Nov 2024, 22:20

Allgood Law
Defense response
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Superior Court,

As the petitioning party, the defense will take this opportunity to have their final say.

Regarding the requested suppression of exhibit 4 - the prosecution confirms Defendant was not served a copy of the warrant. So, the only matter for the Court to determine is who owns these records. The State wishes to Court to believe these records are owned by the State, and therefore the Defendant was not entitled to these records. However, we believe this is merely “smoke and mirrors”.

The warrant states, “a search of Business Records - Loan Contracts for the following designated records…Loan Contracts issued by Total Bankers”

These warrant itself states the records are issued by, and therefore owned (at least in part) bu Total Bankers. These records were provided by Total Bankers to BLB for an entirely different purpose than the States witch hunt. The BLB is merely a regulatory authority.

Regarding exhibits 8 and 9 - the prosecution states these exhibits are necessary to “provide context to the Prosecution's narrative of the defendant's unlawful loan practices of unlawfully seizing collateral from their loaners.” This is a conclusion held by the Prosecution, and not proven. The prosecution has not laid any foundation or evidence for the seizures being unlawful, other than their word as the gospel - “because we say so”. Unfortunately for the State, they cannot prevail at trial using this “because we say so” trial tactic. The contracts presented by the State and signed by the loan holder authorizes a seizure of collateral if a loan is in default. While the State has not provided any evidence of these specific contracts, it is presumed these contracts also warned the holders of collateral being seized upon default.

Regarding exhibits 10-12, the State states,

“furthers the notion that the defendant was aware of vague and unlawful wording in their contracts and attempted to get their contracts authorized through the Judicial Branch's Public Notary. Still, when the response was not in the defendant's favor, they did not proceed with the authorization and instead continued using their regular contracts”

This is factually false. For a brief period of time, BLB required loan companies to go through contract authentication - which is no longer a requirement. The Defendant, in compliance with regulation, sought this process - not because of any awareness or intent to go through with any unlawfulness in their actions.

Regarding exhibit 13, it’s unclear what section the Prosecution says is okay and what section they say they are stipulating to. However, rhe only portion of this the Defense believes is covered under “personal experience and observation” is “At that time I was very new”. Other than Hope Kant interrupting Cody Monk to agree on the alleged high percentages of the interest rates, Cody Monk’s quote is one continuation of what Mr. Modi allegedly told him. Just read the quote excepting Ms. Kant’s interruption, and it’s clear Cody Monk’s quote is just detailing what another person told him, and the State is using in their case to prove the truth of the matter.

For the second quote - the Prosecution states, “an affirmation toward the witness Cody Monk related to the evidence necessary to assist the Prosecution in proving the defendant's guilt, as the quote came after the witness handed over their contract to then-Attorney General Hope Kant, as indicated by the transcript.”

The State proves the Defense’s point exactly. The prosecution, using this argument, presents themselves as the judge, jury, and executioner. The prosecution is not the finder of fact, and the Prosecution’s “affirmation” of guilt upon being handed something, is just an opinion. It’s not been proven in court. The opinion of Hope Kant has no bearing in this case - the only opinion that matters is that of this Court’s.

The next section… semantics. By this argument, the prosecution can insert the word “arguably” and the rest is okay? The Defense arguably believes (among other things not appropriate for public discourse) the Attorney General is going to lose this case, but this doesn’t make it so. Unfortunately for the Attorney General, there are rules and laws pertaining to how evidence can and should be used in criminal trials. Defense requests this Court to look beyond these semantics, read the statements, and apply the law.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 01 Dec 2024, 18:59

Allgood Law
Request for records to be sealed
"Right Firm. Right Now"

To all whom is concerned,

We would also respectfully request Exhibit 15: Mike Luigi Bank Records to be filed under seal.

The Defendant's bank records should be private information, and should not be subject to public disclosure. Considering this witch hunt against the Defendant has been ongoing for well over 18 months now, we believe it's more than unreasonable to subject the Defendant's records for this time period for unrestrained public disclosure.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 09 Dec 2024, 21:15

Allgood Law
Motion to Suppress - Addendum
"Right Firm. Right Now"

To all concerned,

As we have not received a decision on the defense's motion to suppress, and given new information has come to light, the Defense wishes to provide an addendum to the motion to suppress as it pertains to the requested suppression of Exhibit #4: BLB Total Bankers Audit Search Warrant and Results, which the defense has requested total suppression of.

The previous requested grounds for this suppression were on grounds of the warrant for these records was not provided to the Defendant at the time it was served as required by the warrant. The Prosecution has argued these records are owned by the Government / BLB as the reasoning for why the Defendant was not served with a copy. The Defense has argued the Defendant owns these records, and merely provided them to the BLB as a regulatory authority, but such dissemination does not transfer ownership to the BLB nor does such transfer negate the privacy interests in these records. The State by choosing to not provide a copy of this warrant to the Defendant has deprived the Defendant of their ability to contest the warrant, therefore, depriving the Defendant of their right to due process, and therefore should be suppressed under the provision of the "Fruit from the poisonous tree".

Today, the Defense wishes to add further argument in light of new information.

On the 30th of November, 2024, the Sixth Congress of the Law Review Committee met on a number of legislative issues, which are reported in a journal entry published on the 7th of December, 2024. In this journal, it is revealed that H.R. 5 was passed which grants the BLB authority to "request financial and operational documents from licensed businesses to ensure compliance and prevent the use of businesses as fronts for illegal activity, and for other purposes."

This authority having only been made effective on the 30th of November, 2024 suggests this authority did not formally exist prior to November 30th, 2024, however, this authority was used to obtain the records contained within Exhibit 4. The records contained within Exhibit 4 were provided to the BLB sometime after December 23rd, 2023 in response to a "random inspection" conducted by the BLB and under threat of a fine up to $1 million for not complying. In further correspondence, Emily Whitehorse cites some "regulatory authority" from 2022 giving the BLB the authority to conduct a business inspection, noting this authority was created prior to the legislative body now being used to formally recognize such authority.

BLB "Inspection" email

Emily Whitehorse Email re: regulatory authority

It should be noted, the Defendant was under investigation by the Office of the Attorney General in December 2023, who "conveniently" obtained a warrant for these records in March of 2024. The Defendant, under threat of fines up to $1 million, business shuttering, or business seizure, provided these records to BLB in their capacity as a regulatory authority.

Regardless of any government regulatory authority to conduct such an inspection, the Court is reminded the 4th Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens, including the Defendant, from unreasonable seizures and searches. The Government includes the BLB, and the Office of the Attorney General, who are seemingly working together in an investigation against the Defendant.

What effectively happened here is the an agent of the government (BLB) used their regulatory authority to coercively require the Defendant to provide private business records (therefore not a consensual act, and arguably an unreasonable search per the 4th Amendment which should render this information inapplicable, per fruit of the poisonous tree, for use in a criminal investigation against the Defendant), and then another agent of the government (the Office of the Attorney General) covertly applies for a warrant for these records now held by the other agent of the government without any way for the Defendant to argue against it? Furthermore, no other industry was subject to "random inspection" other than loan companies, and it's clear the "random inspection" was not so random and was due to the ongoing inquiry into loan companies which began in June 2023.

By denying the motion to suppress, the Court will be sending a message to all business owners in the State who may come under investigation in the future their Constitutional rights can be so easily subverted so long as one agent comes knocking under the guise of regulatory authority for information and another agent acting as a law enforcement or prosecutorial official obtains a warrant for these records. This is very clearly an loophole being exploited by the Office of the Attorney General. The correct method is to cut out the catalyst agent and require the Attorney General themselves to obtain these records either consensually, without coercion, or via a search warrant which is applied for and served on the person the warrant is directed towards, and allow that person to have legal avenues to contest the warrant.

Regulatory records should only be used for regulatory investigations, and not criminal ones -- as the penalty for not complying with a regulatory investigation or for not following regulatory procedures is purely regulatory (e.g. fines, business closure, business seizure). Whereas, the penalty for not complying with a criminal investigation is much greater (imprisonment or worse), and therefore, the State should certainly have a higher burden if it aims to collect evidence to convict (and imprison) someone. If records are sought through criminal investigation, these records must be obtained separately from regulatory documents.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 12 Dec 2024, 21:17

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,

The Prosecution wants to comment on, and strenuously object to, the Defense's supplement to their Motion to Suppress.

The Defense mentions a recent LRC note of a Business Licensing Bureau authority bill being signed into effect by the Board of Governors on the 30th of November and claims that this should in effect invalidate any prior authority granted to the BLB. However, counsel themselves provided proof (the BLB "Inspection" and Emily Whitehorse regulatory authority emails) that the BLB did, in fact, have the required authority to perform the audit that resulted in the records later gained through a search warrant. The defendant agreed to these terms by registering their business and licensing it:
[Information] SASG Licensing Process - Section 6. DisclaimerThe Business Licensing Bureau reserves the right to conduct random inspections on all businesses and individuals to ensure all licensing requirements are maintained and no violations are committed. Your license(s) will be permanently removed if found to breach these terms. In addition, if you're an employee at a location that was using the license you lost, the company will have their license(s) suspended until you've left the company. Additionally, any law enforcement agency can forward evidence of licensing violations found during law enforcement operations to the Business Licensing Bureau for recording purposes.
The BLB's "investigation", as the Defense calls it, was an independent audit that coincidentally coincided with the investigation performed by the Office of the Attorney General. The insinuation that the Attorney General's Office and the State Government have colluded to produce evidence against the defendant in a witch hunt is wholly unfounded and foul, and making such baseless accusations is nothing less than unbecoming conduct by counsel.

There was no supported system for subpoenas at the time, as there is now, and there was no intention of creating such a system at the time. This was a valid search warrant which was applied for and approved, by the presiding judge no less. The very same judge then denied a second search warrant application and stated "The Court, and in that regard the incumbent Judge, notes that a previous search warrant was approved in this matter. However, that warrant specifically authorized the review of state-owned documentation and findings, not private documents held by companies or individuals." The presiding judge not only approved the search warrant that resulted in these records, but also stated they were state-owned documents.

This addition to a Motion to Suppress is not only filed far beyond the scope of the procedurally allotted time but also bears no relevance due to the regulatory authority in place and granted to the Business Licensing Bureau. It is due to this and the above reasons that the Prosecution objects to this additional suppression and classification of the records in Exhibit #4 as "Fruit of the poisonous tree in full.

Regards,

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 13 Dec 2024, 05:06

Allgood Law
Response
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Honorable Associate Justice McFornell,

REBUTTAL

Defense agrees with the State on this addendum to the motion being filed far beyond procedurally allotted time. But the Defense was very clear in the response the reasoning for the late request -- the motion had not been ruled on and this being an exception due to new information coming to light which the Defense believes to be beneficial for the presiding judge to consider in the current motion on the table.

While the State states the Defense addendum "bears no relevance due to the regulatory authority in place and granted to the Business Licensing Bureau" -- Defense cited the relevance and Defense's point remains; if the BLB already had this authority, why did it have to be passed at the 30/Nov/2024 LRC meeting?

Defense also believes argument can be made on the limitations of this authority -- regardless of any law, regulation, or whatever the "government" passes, the same "government" is restrained by the 4th Amendment and the government should not subvert the 4th Amendment under disguise of regulatory authority. Regulation of businesses is a civil / administrative function of government. This is a criminal case. The former is the executive branch. The latter is the judicial branch and there needs to be separation between the two, especially when the Defendant's liberty is at stake.

The core substance of the defense argument is not on whether the BLB had the authority or not (while Defense does believe and argues the recent legislative act suggests the authority to compel disclosure of records did not exist -- a random inspection of a registered business does not necessarily mean business owners can be compelled to do things which would otherwise require a search warrant to ordinarily gain access to), the main substance of the argument is the government via the Attorney General using the "back door" approach to get these records in the manner it did.

The 4th Amendment details it as a right of the people to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." By definition, the 4th Amendment states any governmental search or seizure is unreasonable without a search warrant (the warrant exceptions detail situations wherein the Courts have previously detailed a search to be reasonable without a search warrant, but barring an exception, any search or seizure is unreasonable unless a valid search warrant is granted and properly executed).

Defense understands a warrant was issued for these records and does not contest this (it's in the exhibit itself). But this warrant was not properly executed and effectively kept "secret" from the person who has the right to be secure in these papers (records). The Defendant was compelled (under threat of fines and potentially other licensing sanctions) to provide evidence now being used against them without any due process and therefore the Defendant's property was deprived without following due process, which is guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Surely it should not be a 'foreign' concept to understand as it's a landmark legal principle. An unlawful seizure does not become lawful because it is then followed up by a search warrant. For example, if the LSPD or LSSD demanded a citizen, under threat of a fine of $1 million for not complying with the order, to provide them with their cell phone and then proceeded to apply for a warrant to search the phone after the fact, the Court would rightfully suppress this evidence upon a motion to suppress, as the Defense has done so here. The fact a search warrant was granted after the fact does not absolve the State of the poison already cast upon this evidence due to the manner in which it was coercively seized; A warrant also does not "cure" an unlawful seizure. The Defendant was faced with a choice to accept a fine of $1 million, or give up these records, which is coerced consent, and therefore, an unreasonable seizure.

The State is correct, the Defendant "agreed to these terms by registering their business and licensing it". But what the Defendant DID NOT agree to is the use of their private records for a criminal case against them and if the State wished to seize these records pursuant to a search warrant, at the very least the State could have very simply provide the Defendant with a copy. Defense notes if the record(s) were truly "state-owned", then why did the State need a warrant to inspect them? That's like saying the Defendant would need a warrant to inspect their own property -- if the property is truly owned by the State, then a warrant would not be necessary.

At the risk of engaging in an argument with State's counsel, we will not provide further argument on the "collusion" as the State calls it. Defense believes the arguments above speak for themselves as to why the way these records were obtained goes against the very principle of liberty and being secure in one's person or effects.

Nothing further from the Defense.

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Maximilian Fitzgerald** » 14 Dec 2024, 00:07

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF JUDICIAL REASSIGNMENT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi

Due to the resignation of the previous Judge, I will be dealing with this case moving forward. Please allow up to 7 days from this post for me to familiarize myself with the case and proceed.

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎ 1-000-000
✉ [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 15 Dec 2024, 23:35

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 15th of December, 2024.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for the request is as follows;

Reasoning: Pending evidence
- Detailed Explanation: The Prosecution is requesting an indefinite continuance until the Los Santos Bank can provide the requested records. The Prosecution believes proceeding with this case without this evidence would allow bias and prejudice to enter the case. ((Staff is still working on providing the bank records.))

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Maximilian Fitzgerald** » 24 Dec 2024, 00:07

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A decision was reached in the above case on the 22nd day of December, 2024.

((The motion for continuance is denied due to Exhibit #15 being unable to be provided. This also means Exhibit #15 will not exist as far as the case is concerned.))

Firstly the court would like to make the prosecution aware that exhibits #2 and #3 appear to be not working correctly, you have 14 days to fix this or the exhibits will be inadmissible.

Exhibit #4: BLB Total Bankers Audit Search Warrant and Results

While the Defense has argued that the submission of these records was coerced, the Court finds that regulatory compliance is not coercion within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The threat of penalties for non-compliance is a standard and lawful enforcement mechanism inherent in regulatory schemes. The Defendant could have sought administrative remedies or review at the time of the inspection but did not do so. Therefore, the submission of these records cannot be deemed involuntary in a constitutional sense.

The acquisition of the records via a warrant is also lawful. The warrant was directed to the business licensing bureau, which held the records as a part of the regulatory oversight responsibilities. The defendant submitting these records cannot now assert ownership or privacy interests that supersede the custody and control. As such, the court rules that there was no requirement to serve the warrant to the defendant. BLB's role as a regulatory authority is distinct from the prosecutions role in criminal investigations, the records were lawfully obtained under regulatory authority and then later subjected to judicial oversight through the issuance of a valid warrant.
The court also notes that the legislative enactment cited by the defence does not retroactively invalidate the bLB's longstanding authority to conduct inspections and audits of licensed businesses.

Therefore, the motion to suppress Exhibit #4 is denied.

Exhibit #13: Cody Monk and John G Interview

CM: Yeah, and Medi told me- Modi- whatever. He told me that these loans are not even validated or whatever. He does them out of his pocket or- and they’re very high percentage.
HK: They are.
CM: And he does it to newer people. He- and he does it to new people. At that time I was very new, and he- he takes that advantage. He says “oh it’s a good one” and bro-

This section will be suppressed due to hearsay.

"So, that is literally what I needed for clear evidence of predatory lending."
This section will bee suppressed due to being more prejudicial than probative.

"HK: Yeah- um- I mean that’s arguably abuse of power, but I mean we’ll- I’ll go through the footage and I’ll see what I can do um cause this isn’t allowed um at all in any way shape or form. So we’ll figure it out. We’ll at least get some money hopefully sent back to you guys. And like work this out for you guys cause I’m really sorry this happened."
The highlighted section will be suppressed due to being more prejudicial than probative.

"HK: No, it’s not that. It’s predatory lending. It’s just- you should never do that. That’s wrong."
Once again, more prejudicial than probative, suppressed.

Exhibit #8: Avon Miller Warrant Reports & Exhibit #9: Ocean Dessrnt Warrant Reports

The court does not find these 2 exhibits entirely irrelevant nor overly prejudicial. The defence is correct that it is a conclusion held by the prosecution and not proven, however, the court can also accept the argument that these exhibits can provide context to the prosecution's narrative and will therefore provisionally allow these exhibits under the condition that connection to the charges will need to be clearly established during the proceedings when presenting this evidence.

Therefore the motion to suppress Exhibit #8 & #9 is denied.

Exhibit #10: Mike Luigi Public Notary Initial Submission, Exhibit #11: Public Notary Assessment Email, & Exhibit #12: Mike Luigi Response to Contract Assessment

Much like the previous 2 exhibits, the admissibility of these exhibits are based on whether they make fact of consequence more or less probable. The exhibits meet the threshold of relevance by potentially providing context regarding the defendant’s knowledge of the terms in question. However, their probative value and specific connection to the charges must be established by the prosecution during trial. The defense retains the right to challenge this connection through cross-examination and argument.

Therefore, the motion to suppress Exhibits #10, #11 & #12 is denied

((FYI I will be gone for the next week, Merry Christmas!))

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎ 1-000-000
✉ [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 28 Dec 2024, 19:10

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 28th day of December, 2024.

The Defendant, Mike Luigi, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

Requested Discovery: Housing Records for 13 Occupation Avenue between 1/MAR/2023 to 1/JUN/2023
- Detailed Reasoning: The State’s exhibit 1 is a contract entered into by Cody Monk for the property of 13 Occupation Avenue. The Defense reached out to Property & Housing Bureau (PHB) on 23/NOV seeking these records, but despite a 6/Dec response stating some sort of update on this request would be provided within 48 hours, PHB has not responded. The Defense notes the circumstances regarding the ownership and alleged seizure of this property is seemingly a large aspect of the State’s case, and therefore the Defense believes it is necessary for this information to be compelled by the Court so the Defense can have access to this information for its case.

Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 28 Dec 2024, 19:14

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 28th of December, 2024.

The Defendant, Mike Luigi, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

Exhibit #1: Additional e-mails from July 2023 between Defendant and Prosecutor Hope Kant
Spoiler

Exhibit #2: March 2024 - GOV Press Release #71: BLB licensing updates requiring loan companies to use authentication
Spoiler

Exhibit #3: April 2024 - BLB Notice: Recension of BLB requirements to use authentication
Spoiler

Exhibit #4: Written Statement - Mike Luigi (Defendant’s statement)
Spoiler
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information
- Case Number: #24-CM-0030
  Incident Date: N/A
Witness Information
- Name: Mike Luigi
  Date of Birth: 07/JAN/1997
  Phone Number: 381-5045
  Occupation: CEO, Total Bankers
Witness Statement
- On 15/APR/2023 Cody Monk took out a $195,000 loan through Total Bankers so they would be able to purchase 13 Occupation Ave, 13 Occupation Ave was then also to be used as the collateral for the loan. After the contract was signed, Cody Monk didn't use the funds to purchase 13 Occupation Ave. In the days following the contract being signed I realized that Cody Monk failed to purchase the property. I attempted to resolve the matter, however, Cody Monk refused to entertain my attempts and instead kept the money. In the weeks following, a meeting was arranged with JB Attorney Sai Modi and Cody Monk in another attempt to amicably resolve the situation, during these discussions Cody Monk did agree to make repayments but ultimately failed to hold up to their end of the agreement. To this day, over 19 months later, Cody Monk has not paid back the $195,000 nor was any collateral ever seized from Cody Monk.
  
  I wish to make it abundantly clear, as soon as a seizure is conducted Total Bankers closes the loan in its entirety. Total Bankers does not keep contracts or their balances open following a seizure.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Mike Luigi, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
  
  Signed,
  
  Mike Luigi
  Chief Executive Officer
  Total Bankers
  
  Date: 27/DEC/2024

Exhibit #5: Bar license - Andy Tyrie
Spoiler
Copy Attached

Attorney
Owner
Allgood Law
909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 28 Dec 2024, 19:18

Allgood Law
Defense limited availability
"Right Firm. Right Now"

To all parties,

This notice serves as notice of defense counsel limited availability from now through 5/Jan/2025. As such, defense responses may be limited during this period.

Defense counsel will be back in Liberty City for some continuing education credits

((vacation. Won’t have pc access. Can do something’s from my phone, within reason))

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 29 Dec 2024, 00:11

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 29th of December, 2024.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

Requested Discovery: Defendant's emails addressed to Hope Kant from July 2023 regarding loan contract assessment
- Detailed Reasoning: The Defense has presented evidence to explore their own narrative, but the evidence is only partial. Without the defendant's email responses to the emails provided in the Defense's Exhibit #1, these emails are more prejudicial than probative as they offer no context to the contents of the exhibit.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Hugh Allgood** » 29 Dec 2024, 02:34

Allgood Law
Defense response to Prosecution Motion to Compel
"Right Firm. Right Now"

Superior Court Judge Fitzgerald,

The Defense formally contests the Prosecution’s motion to compel discovery from the Defendant on a number of grounds - constitutional and procedural.

From a constitutional standpoint, this request by the Attorney General is one of the more ridiculous things to come out of this office in very short time. The 5th Amendment guarantees that the Defendant cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.

No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself
In anticipation of the Prosecution’s response being the fact the Defense’s discovery includes some emails as some sort of a waiver of this right, we continue to assert the Defendant’s 5th Amendment right. The inclusion of this information is par for the Defendant’s right to be able to lodge their own defense and right to have representation, which includes the defendants right to have compulsory process to obtain evidence and witnesses in their favor (6th Amendment), hence the defense motion to compel discovery . This is not a “right” enjoyed by the prosecution as the Attorney General is attempting to exert here.

The prosecution’s claim that without the defendant’s responses the evidence is “ these emails are more prejudicial than probative” is a farce. Also, it’s important to note the emails in defense exhibits are additional emails between the Defendant and Ms. Kant. In other words, the prosecution introduced the evidence in this exhibit first (exhibits 10-12). The fact that now the Defense has presented more of the emails conveniently left out of the prosecution evidence in chief is of no concern to the defense. It’s not our burden to prove the Defendant is innocent. Any prejudice cast on the State’s case by the Defense exhibits doesn’t make it objectionable. In fact, this is not even a proper use of the objection. Effectively the Prosecution is using the “this hurts my case, therefore its prejudicial” argument.

More Prejudicial Than Probative
This is the argument: "The evidence being introduced is highly prejudicial to your client and this prejudice far outweighs the probative value."
This is not an objection of "This really hurts my case." All evidence by opposing counsel will hurt your case. An objectionable piece of evidence is one that not only hurts your case but is not relevant enough to the merits of your opponent’s case to be let in.
From a procedural standpoint. It’s important to note that the Attorney General and Ms. Kant (former Attorney General) work for the same office. If the prosecution believes more emails need to be shown, then why doesn’t the prosecution simply go get them from Ms. Kant themself? Or go get another “top-secret” search warrant that you don’t serve on the defendant? Or another constitutionally promiscuous subpoena? Those are the methods the prosecution can, and has, used in this case. What’s the difference now?

Respectfully,

Owner/Attorney
Allgood Law
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

Post by **Terence Williams** » 29 Dec 2024, 23:10

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Honorable Judge Fitzgerald and pertaining parties,

The Prosecution would like to note that no formal objections have been filed, nor a Motion to Suppress, for any exhibits of the Defense's discovery. As such, the Defense's tirade is found to be folly.

The Prosecution is well aware of the defendant's constitutionally protected right not to be a witness against themselves. However, prosecutors, just as as a defense attorney, has an obligation to try everything in their power to get whatever evidence necessary for their case. So while it was expected of counsel to pull one of their few cards and object, the Prosecution had no choice but to file the motion. As for the Defence calling for the emails to just be provided with the rest of the Prosecution's discovery as "the Attorney General and Ms. Kant work for the same office", that is simply untrue. First, the emails requested are not part of the original discovery as they have not been a part of the Prosecution's case so far. Second, Hope Kant has not been involved in this case for nearly five (5) months, and the only relation between the Branch Administrator and Attorney General is that of operating a healthy Judicial Branch.

The Prosecution, and by extension the Office of the Attorney General, would prefer if Defense counsel refrained from further underhanded jabs towards this counsel. The continued notion that there has been a breach of judicial protocol by "leaving out evidence" or an abuse of power by using illegitimate means of gathering evidence is not only unfounded, but wholly unprofessional, and has no place in court. If counsel has an issue, they can file a claim with the Bar Ethics Review Board.

Regards,

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

Post by **Maximilian Fitzgerald** » 30 Dec 2024, 18:35

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Mike Luigi
#24-CM-0030

A decision was reached in the above case on the 30th day of December, 2024.

Firstly, Defence, please present your objections as actual, proper objections and not "the defence formally contests...". Secondly, prosecution and defence this will be your only warning from me, I will not have bickering and 'jabs' at each other on a docket I am overseeing. Stick to the case, the facts, and your reasoning. There is no need for making assumptions about the other side, or asking questions about why they have made decisions.

The court will await the prosecution's response to the defence's motion to compel the discovery of "Housing Records for 13 Occupation Avenue between 1/MAR/2023 to 1/JUN/2023" before making a decision on this motion.

Finally, as for the motion to compel discovery of "Defendant's emails addressed to Hope Kant from July 2023 regarding loan contract assessment":

Having reviewed the motion and objections raised, the court finds that the defence has introduced the emails between the defendant and Ms Hope Kant into evidence as part of their discovery. These emails have been used to support the defence's narrative, yet their correspondence remains incomplete without the defendant's responses to said emails. The completeness of the email chain is essential to ensure the evidence presented is not misleading. Partial disclosure creates an incompleteness and potentially unbalanced evidentiary picture. The court also recognizes that completeness is a key component of ensuring the evidence is both probative and fair.

Finally on the aspect of the 5th amendment rights of the defendant, by introducing partial emails into evidence, the defence has voluntarily placed this correspondence into the record. This action constitutes a limited waiver of the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination regarding these specific communications. Therefore the prosecutions motion for the remainder of the email chain directly pertains to the evidence already introduced by the defence.

Therefore, the prosecutions motion to compel discovery is granted.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎ 1-000-000
✉ [email protected]

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards